December 13, 2006

How many times do you hear someone apologizing for having right leaning views -- "Oh, no, I am not really a Republican, I have other views etc." My question is, what if one is a Republican or right leaning. So what? Is that a crime?

She's also disagreeing with me disagreeing with Tom DeLay who said that the blogosphere needs more right-wing attack dogs. (I'm paraphrasing!)

Sadly, I used to agree with views like Althouse's but I am beginning to see that while it is admirable to hold facts and substance above attacking one's opponents views, it doesn't work.

My view, you remember from yesterday, is that vicious and nasty lefty bloggers should be bested with better substance and smarter rhetoric. But Dr. Helen has a point. For example, I've noticed that arch ambiguities, terse sarcasm, and mischievous fun-poking confuses a lot of people. But I'm not going to change. I'm not in this to persuade people to agree with me. I write for the sake of writing and observe because I am alive... up here in my lonely outpost in Madison, Wisconsin.

One of the things that I observe, by the way, is how this attitude I take -- whatever it is -- drives the left blogosphere up the wall. I wonder why it takes so little? And why this special obsession with me? Some blogger wrote about me -- I linked to him yesterday... he's not getting another -- "She makes Ann Coulter look like Cicero." Ann Coulter makes outrageous statements intended to taunt people into attacking her. That's her game. I make some throwaway, half-humorous remark in the middle of a comments thread and touch off multi-blog fireworks that go on for days. What's that all about?

187 comments:

What's it about?A desire to cow you into submission to their natural authority.

But you reject the extreme and choose a middle path. So, because you are lukewarm, neither hot nor cold, they will spit you out of their mouth. You know, like Jesus. (Very much like Jesus, except, not all religiony or anything, but the socialist and shepherdy part.)

Therefore, they are right, you are wrong. They are good, you are evil. You were once of the faith, now you are an infidel, and one who knows their playbook. Damn Althouse to, um, some bad place we don't believe in!

'Althouse' is the most enjoyable of my top three blogs because it's just like travelling across Canada by rail thirty years ago -- wonderful, intriguing, baffling, and stimulating conversations all inter-woven.

Friendly conductor to keep things from getting out of hand. Unexpected stops in the middle of nowhere to let somebody on or off. Lively, sharp, but generally civil political debates. Little communities coalescing for however much of the journey we're on together.

That sort of intensely rewarding, deeply human interaction is all too rare these days, but it's common fare here on 'Althouse,' and deeply appreciated for that in itself.

The "crushing" incident is an excellent example of how something that would be quite obvious in conversation can be misinterpreted when printed. True, some choose to intentionally misinterpret comments like that, while others miss the humor because they are humorless or arrive looking for fighting words.

It seems to me that a lot of these people want your approval, attention, and/or your audience. It reminds when someone once famously claimed "We've got Althouse" for their start-up and you said "No, you don't."

"One of the things that I observe, by the way, is how this attitude I take -- whatever it is -- drives the left blogosphere up the wall. I wonder why it takes so little? And why this special obsession with me?"

You have some inherent modesty backed with very keen insight and practicality and you don't trumpet said virtues. Take for example the Post on your 7th million viewer. There was no smug, coy back patting on your part. That will give anyone some enemies in this day and age. Secondly, given your intelligence, it gnaws at the Left that you don't totally buy into their agenda and ideology. They are supposed to have the monopoly on intelligence, insight and solutions you know. I christen thee Annathon Livingston Seagull.

I'm no dummy and I make my rounds and I will say it again: you sport the sharpest pencils in the bin for commentators and some of the best wags I've seen in many a year.

As I've mentioned before, your Leftist Trolls have neither a sense of civility or humor. They come onto your site and blasxt you for not corresponding to their views. I used to be a Democrat until 1992 when I saw the germination of anti-semitism start to grow inside the party (and this was in NYC). Out here in the Entertainment field, one must be careful what you say or you will literally be spit upon. I await the time I meet an open minded Democrat. They don't show up here.

pogo is correct. It has been said many times, but it's true--Leftism(I no longer call it liberalism as so much of what the Left, or "progressives" believe these days is illiberal)is a secular religion. They can't tolerate any disagreement with the Faith. In religious cults, no one is more despised than a former believer who has left the fold. It's been striking to me how the recent Democratic victories haven't resulted in any lessening of the seething anger so evident on lefty blogs. Too many of them seem more interested in retribution than they do in any positive or constructive action. Their credo seems to be, "Crush the enemy," not "Lead the country." In some circles, to claim to be a Conservative is akin to claiming Devout Atheism at a Fundamentalist Revival.

Though intended as an insult, I'm not sure you should take it as one. As usual the lefties don't know their history very well.

I have read more Cicero (in the original) than Althouse. He was detested by his opponents on account of his sharp pen, repeated and often outrageous digs, and generally forceful stands on behalf of liberty.

In the end he was murdered by his adversaries because they couldn't make him shut up any other way and he consistently shone them, in a bad light, for what they were. Tyrants.

If Coulter had a Senate seat the comparison to Cicero would be even more apt.

I'm a conservative; probably more conservative than 75 percent of the country and certainly more so than our hostess. I think that politics and ideology, while important to conservative activists, are critical to the Left. The notion that "the personal is political" really has no currency on the Right while the expression itself comes from the Left. I think the primary reason for this is that for the mostly secular Left, its varied movements are not only their religion, but the lenses through which most parts of life and the world are viewed. But your carefully considered agnosticism or scepticism makes you apostate; additionally, your demographic markers suggest to them you should be firmly planted in their camp. In many respects, they find you antagonizing the same way they find Glenn Reynolds antagonizing - like Jesuits, they really think once they had you, they had the right to keep you, and your faithlessness is your failure, not theirs.

It's an imperfect analysis; but I do think the Left and Right sides of the blogosphere really are different, and not just ideologically.

How do you rationalize intellectually that people should be culturally and economically equal. You can't... the only argument for equality is that it "feels good" or "seems right." Therefore, the only way to argue for programs to support equality, is to accuse your opponents of being bad and evil for being against programs that support equality, which is what the Left does over and over and over. They say Republicans hate the poor, Republicans hate the children, they hate the hispanics, they hate women, they hate anyone who feels oppressed (which is everyone).

I saw a piece awhile back, on Jim Lehrer's Newshour of all places, of how average, run-of-the mill conservatives (not the one's who would be posting and arguing on blogs) are reluctant to voice their views in public. They went around to a few picnics and family gatherings in rural America and interviewed people. The interviewer noted that people tended to lower their voice and seem a bit ashamed when they answered the interviewers questions with a "conservative" answer. The explanation put forth was that these people were expressing views which were at odds with what they hear everyday from the media. So, even though they sincerely held these views, they had this feeling that there was something "wrong" with them.

Ann said..."[T]his attitude I take -- whatever it is -- drives the left blogosphere up the wall. I wonder why it takes so little? And why this special obsession with me?"

Perhaps its for the same reason that they reserve special cases of tar and feathers for black Republicans: they think they're entitled to you. You're a professor. A law professor, even, the very vanguard of the left, in their eyes. You're in academia -- you live in Madison, WI, for pete's sake. How can you not be a Democrat?! You're supposed to be a Democrat. How dare you -- a law professor! -- be anywhere to the right of Walter Mondale? That is, I think you attract particularly vociferous hostility from them because they can't believe that you, a law professor, who should be on their team, have the nerve to think for yourself.

I suppose the alternative hypothesis is that the left believes that Republicans are stupid, ugly, retrograde, inarticulate, illiterate chumps. It challenges their sense of reality to find someone who is none of those things yet is still not a democrat. Have you read Groupthink by Irving Janis

Derve said..."I think some of the lesser people object to Republican policies that place the lesser people at a disadvantage for whatever reason. Many merely want a level playing field"

So, you're abandoning affirmative action as a cause celebre, then? This renewed commitment to the level playing field has been absent from the democratic lexicon for quite some time -- didn't you get the memo?

I make some throwaway, half-humorous remark in the middle of a comments thread and touch off multi-blog fireworks that go on for days. What's that all about?

I could take this little line so many places, but fear anywhere I go with it, Simon will follow and accuse me of un-sportsman-like conduct. I guess I'll just sit here in my VW van with my 8-track deck and my cool jug of hard cider and

The converse of that for me is anytime politics comes up in conversation, it always comes from my liberal/Left friends (or my wife's) and almost never from our conservative friends. And it is always so freaking emotional. It is as if liberals and the Left have this uncontrollable urge to argue politics. It is so tiresome; I never bring up politics in social conversations simply because I don't want to argue with someone for three hours as to how they wish the world was...

Reality Check -"there are so many libertarians that think what is happening to Padilla and habeas is so peachy keen and just in line with libertarian points of view."

You recall, of course, that Althouse was in favor of granting cert in Padilla ("I agree with Justice Ginsburg that the case falls within the "voluntary cessation" exception to the mootness doctrine") (a position that I found myself stunned to agree with too), and has previously lamented that "[t]he academy's strange remove from risky, dangerous human life should unsettle us ... ... [the] injuries that befall the characters in the cases we read. They are not fictional characters, though as we read about them we sit in the same comfy chairs we sit in when we read novels. They genuinely suffer and frequently die, slipping through the fictional web of doctrine upon which we train our eyes," Late Night Confessions in the Hart & Wechsler Hotel, 47 Vand. L. Rev. 993, 1003 (1994)? But you knew that, right? Because I know you wouldn't just make wild, baseless accusations on a topic you know nothing about - right?

" think some of the lesser people object to Republican policies that place the lesser people at a disadvantage for whatever reason."

There are no "lesser people." Some are less advantaged, or less wealthy, or less powerful, or less healthy, or less endowed, or less intelligent, or less educated, or less capable, so on and so forth; but there are no lesser people. The world is not fair, agreed, but this notion of "lesser people" is offensive as hell.

I don't think I'm smart at all, Derve. I leave that stuff to smart people, and throw my tuppeny worth in where it doesn't seem horribly inappropriate. But I do seem to be able to remain on topic, which seems to be a problem for you. Apropos:

"What are your plans -- Republican plans -- to provide better education at the local levels in integrated areas?"

That has nothing to do with affirmative action, but not so smart as I am, I tend to think that Cleveland had the right idea with going to a voucher system, and I would basically support that.

"How 'bout that situation in Iraq? Big talker while the country loses..."

That has nothing to do with affirmative action either, and I'm not going to be lectured by someone who (a) never wanted us to go in the first place and (b) wants us to lose now we're there, thanks. The answer to the question is that most of the problems that have befallen us have resulted from failing to listen to what military commanders on the ground said. The first step is to fire Rumsfeld; the second step is to ask the commanders on the ground what they need to win, and the third step is to give it to them, no matter what domestic spending programs we have to cut to pay for it.

If I think someone is a disengenuous hypocrite, moron, jerk, etc., I avoid them. I don't go to their home or place of business, and I certainly don't communicate with them on an ongoing basis. My criticism will benefit neither of us.

I come to Althouse several times a day because it is such an intersting bazaar of ideas and stories. The comments, apart from the angry flamethrowers are often funny, and at times brilliant.

I comment here very rarely, but I visit as much as anyone. Why, for the love of God do trolls come here with such vehemence and frequency? Are we all going to be converted to the Church of the Holy Kos? What the hell is the point of going to blogs that drive you crazy? Life is too short and too precious to be wasted on manufactured anger.

Thank you to Ann and to all the regular commenters who make this site fun and informative on a daily basis.

"The first step is to fire Rumsfeld; the second step is to ask the commanders on the ground what they need to win, and the third step is to give it to them, no matter what domestic spending programs we have to cut to pay for it."

And the fourth step is to stop listening to the advice and demands of those who want us to lose in Iraq in the first place, and get busy with winning. Losing in Iraq is nothing but bad. Even for the Derves of the world, whether they realize it or not.

When I was in DC, there was always a running joke, "Scratch a Democrat and you can find an aristocrat". Judging by Derve's comments, we Republicans are her "lessers" since we didn't go to Law school (or Private School). Democrats don't believe in debate, they want to censor any opinion that is not theirs. How many differing opinions are on Daily Kos, my DD or Firedoglake? Heck, james Wolcot allows no comments or email to him if you disagree. Where is that open mindedness Derve?

I show up because you are an intellectual lightweight who imagines otherwise.

I show up because you are a nasty, petty, vindictive person.

I show up because you are angry and unstable.

I show up because your sycophants are even more pathetic than you are.

Above all, I show up to watch you disassemble. Your lonely Thanksgiving of raking is slouching toward a lonelier Christmas of... what, exactly? Blogging about the intemperate bloggers who bested you when you ran for class president?

Finally, I show up to figure out what time you started drinking on a given day. The answer is, almost always, too early.

You can imagine all you want that you are too clever for the readers who ridicule you. But, at the end of the day, you are an angry, unstable, deeply unhappy, and dizzily stupid person. Your flaws are obvious to anyone who reads you, save the sycophants here who worship you for their own complicated reasons.

Mortimer Brezny said... "Perhaps there should be a Complete Mort's Comment thread[?] Great idea! But I think Ann would have to actually like me (or at least my presence on her blog) for that to happen."

For what it's worth, I like you, and I appreciate your being here and your contributions - I'm just saying that you might sometimes dial it back just a touch. ;)

Charles,If that's how you see it -- I think you're way off the mark, but if that's really how you see it -- then you either have the worst case of schadenfreud of any human being alive, or a bigger crush on Ann than every other commenter here put together.

I, too, want a level-playing field. Unfortunately, I practice in academia. Hahahaha. Don't worry, I make this joke in staff meetings.

And I am kidding! I've had a pretty good deal so far. I've found that as a woman of South Asian descent (key demographical data which should help you all judge all of my future remarks - the demographics, not the content, being key these days), the perks that come with being a registered Republican are awesome! The Rove checks come in handy! (Are those the tax breaks you Republicans care so much about? - Ed. Oh be quiet - Me). Donna Karan store, here I come! Cue evil sounding music. Dum da da dum dum.

Chuck,"Angry"? Not seen so much anger. Occaisional irritation, sure. Frequent bemusement, certainly. "Anger"?

By the way, when you post your law review articles on the Eleventh Amendment and Federalism, you might be in a position to start calling Ann "intellectually lightweight." I won't hold my breath waiting for your devastating published ripostes to Variations on a Theory of Normative Federalism: A Supreme Court Dialogue, The Alden Trilogy: Still Searching for a Way to Enforce Federalism or Federal Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Federal Rights. In fact, I doubt you've even read them. So you have no credibility to stand here (so to speak) and talk about anyone's intellectual credentials. All you mean is that you don't agree with Ann's politics. Big fucking deal. Someone disagrees with you and that means that they're stupid or drunk? Jeez, how old are you? Made it through middle school yet? I think you'll find that very few commenters, least of all me, completely share her political views, yet we somehow manage to restrain ourselves from the kind of childish behavior you and the other Greenwaldian sock and meat puppets indulge in every visit.

Two days ago she hits 7 million on the ol' site meter and today, just about 18,000 more have stopped by. How about them apples, Charles? I see roughly 582 people have viewed your profile. You're dazzling 'em, baby! And by the way, what in the heck has happened to your own Blog? I couldn't find it....

She has every right to drop-kick the jackass in the groin, and should. Intellectual property of this nature is much like one's home IMHO..... he is 'taking it to the street' under the guise of intellectual dueling

How do you feel about the 2006 election? Depressed, saddened? I didn't even feel bad on election day! With Alcee Hastings and Reyes who doesn't know a Sunni from a Shiite, and William Jefferson re-elected, I just laugh my ass off. I enjoyed Clinton's presidency because of all the great jokes, and although I relentlessly complained about his foreign policy, I couldn't claim the economy was bad. If Hillary becomes President, the world will not end. Politics is a side show that affects me enough to get me interested, but not enough to dominate my life. (which is why it's easy to toss off Republican politicians) Perhaps it is because I am a conservative: I believe men are flawed and that this world will never be a utopia, and that I am mostly responsible for my own success. There is a barrier between my politics and my life. I think a lot of liberals lack that barrier.

"She makes Ann Coulter look like Cicero." Ann Coulter makes outrageous statements intended to taunt people into attacking her. That's her game. I make some throwaway, half-humorous remark in the middle of a comments thread and touch off multi-blog fireworks that go on for days. What's that all about?

Your answer lies right there. The comparison to Coulter wasn't random. Yes, stylistically you are very different from Coulter, but the effects you each have are similar. No, don't set out overtly to taunt them into responding, but they feel taunted and they do respond. You are fortunate that they aren't as vicious in their hatred towards you as they are towards Coulter. Your vintage 1973 sexism-dar would be going off like a Christmas tree if they were. The names they call Coulter and the things they say about her as a woman are beyond vile. But that's the way the left operates.

Fatmouse said... Is Charles Giacometti the second coming of Deb Frisch?

As mental patients go, Frisch was one of a kind, whereas Giacometti is just another of the many obsessive trolls all over the internet who take their miserable lives out on others.

Giacometti is a commenter at the sock puppet's site, btw. I first noticed him months ago on Althouse when he was threatening to call her dean and report her to various other places. He also promised he wouldn't be wasting any more of his time reading this blog. lol

Try being gay and attempting to stay friends with people whose political views tend to be as well thought-out as those of Cindy Sheehan. As noted by others, the more mechanical, learned-by-rote Left a person's views, the more likely they are to spout them whenever they have an audience. It's a constant dilemma whether to remain silent and hope the conversation shifts to something more fun, or respond and deal with the shock that anyone dares dissent from liberal orthodoxy.

The great thing about the left is they can't help exposing their nature. As this comment thread illustrates, the best way to defeat the left is just to engage them civilly in argument and watch them commit suicide while attempting homicide.

Mortimer Brezny said..."Oh, stop. Ann is far smarter, far wittier, far more reasonable, and far sexier than Ann Coulter. And not even Simon would say I went too far on that one."

No, I think that's about right, although I think you're setting the bar a little low - a bag of cold porridge is "far smarter, far wittier, far more reasonable, and far sexier than Ann Coulter."

Too Many Jims said..."I'm not in this to persuade people to agree with me ... Sounds like what Scalia said in his recent conversation with Justice Breyer."

Well, hold the phone - that perhaps demands more explication. What Scalia in that discussion (among other interesting things) said was that he doesn't expect to convince his colleagues on the Supreme Court that his methodology is right, nor legal professionals whose views on such matters are entrenched. I don't think he means on a case-by-case basis he doesn't expect to persuade four of his colleagues. And in any event, that doesn't seem particularly controversial; I think we are a little too far along the road to Damascus to expect Justice Ginsburg to undergo a blinding conversion to Originalism.

I think Scalia expects to convince his non-originalist colleagues -- that is, everyone else on the court except Justice Thomas and possibly Justice Alito (although that remains to be seen) -- whenever his methodology leads to a result that they agree with.

This is all so sad. I'm a dual US-Canada citizen (US born), and whilst I left Canada some 15 years ago because of the outrageous tax burden and atrocious health care system, there's one thing I really miss.

My best friends in Quebec (where I lived for thirteen years) were 180-degrees opposed to me politically. Our disagreements became the foundation of the friendship. It was fun to bounce that stuff back and forth. Like a good tennis game. They're the ones that fifteen years later I still go back and visit ... and we debate the politics all over again.

Somehow in America we've got to the point where different political views have become a source of division. Time to call a spade a spade. In America 90% of this nonsense comes from the Left.

Lefties: you ought to be ashamed of yourselves. Not for your views, but for your bitter, utterly childish attitudes towards those who disagree with you. You're obviously quite insecure in your beliefs, and it diminishes all of us.

Bart, we are an armed people 'down here' - that tends to make for sharper dichotomies in open forums like this. I have no doubt that even the most rabid Leftist troll who comes to pee here would be quite civil in a face-to-face discussion with any of the usual group that posts here.

"There is a recurring fantasy that imbecility and bad manners will be vanquished by a witty and penetrating reply. It doesn't work that way, alas. Better to take a shot, if you must, and then move on."

True. I've shot off a few funny responses to boorish dinner conversation comments and they usually don't even get it. After being called ‘evil’ or something ... making fun of the fact they claim to be leftist secularists... and such... just lost on them.

The next response is to just stop accepting invitations to events they're at.

I agree with Sippican in relation to "boldface"'s comment. I'm not necessarily opposed to outing anonymous posters (Daily Kos' Armando springs to mind), but since we have no particular reason to assume that in this case, "Charles Giacometti" is not a nom de plume, I'd hate for this guy to be misidentified as that guy.

Moreover, the Charles posting upthread has a profile that specifies his location as Boston, and lists his profession as "publishing"; since absolutely nothing he has posted here even vaguely suggests a legal education, I'm inclined to think that the lawyer Giacometti in PA is not our anomymous irritant.

Funny, but a lot of the internal division started due to policies from the .... right. Now if you people turned out to be right on what you were talking about... no big deal. But we're losing ground, big time.

The country's future is being flushed down the toilet thanks to this administration. Maybe in 20 years, you'll better see it...

Goesh said: I have no doubt that even the most rabid Leftist troll who comes to pee here would be quite civil in a face-to-face discussion

I disagree, rather strongly. I live and farm 13 miles from downtown Lawrence, Kansas, the main "oasis" of left-wing thought in this part of the world. The level of bitterness, intolerance, and unwillingness to have a decent conversation continues to astound me.

If you're ever in this part of the world, stop by the Free State brew-pub too see what I mean. The beer is by far the best to be found south of Canada, but as political conversations go ... it's pitiful.

"The next response is to just stop accepting invitations to events they're at."

OK in theory, impossible in practice. In certain settings, it's absolutely guaranteed there will be at least one doctrinaire lefty at every dinner or cocktail party, every-ready to begin a political monologue. You can either stay home, or cultivate a benignly blank expression while you wait for normal conversation to recur.

I wish it weren't true Paddy, but the stakes are so much higher than right now than many of you are willing to acknowledge...

Can anyone refer me to a good doc who prescribes the optimism pills y'all seem to be munching? Or is it that we're supposed to be content looking out for us and ours, and just not worry about the country as a whole?

Because if you take a hard cold look at the numbers, I can't understand all the cheering here, thinking we're still in the lead with no one coming up close behind.

Anyway- Ms. Althouse, while not a frequent visitor to your site, must say it's one of the more genteel and refined in terms of site content and commenters that I've seen on the net. Will not hazard comparing said site to a mode of transportation at this point, being an infrequent visitor and all.

As for your tailored political ideology in an off the rack society- screw 'em if they can't appreciate couture.

I am continually amazed as to how what is going on now here and in the world is worse and more conseqence-ridden than the Civil war, WW1, WW2, the Korean war, Viet Nam, DDT, the Weathermen, the SDS, the gas crisis, and cancer.

Apparently we hold the fate of the entire world in our evil, grubby right wing hands.

Zeb: I see outrageously sexist things written about me on the lefty blogs nearly every day. I've thought of collecting them and doing a post about it, but I have better things to do. I know it goes on.

So the stakes are much higher now than they were in the 1960's-1970's, when the free world faced nuclear war with the Soviets? Higher than the late 70's, when we endured double-digit inflation and stagnation under Carter? Your selective memory (or lack of it) is telling.

How very ... weasely of you. Do you get a prize, or even celebrate a win like that in your culture? My type tends to applaud most viciously for hard-fought wins, earned on merit. You walk away secure in the internal reward, rather than scoring cheap ultimately meaningless points. It's the final score that counts... FWIW

So the stakes are much higher now than they were in the 1960's-1970's, when the free world faced nuclear war with the Soviets?

Yes imo. Looking at who will have nuclear weaponry in the immediate future, the Soviets were stable negotiating partners in comparison. Remember the Cuban missle crisis? And how many suicide bombers did the Russian culture produce anyway?

Don't be so stupid to deny the stakes to make a cheap point against me, eh? Enough about Carter's gas lines; look at the economic forecast today and how balanced the economy is. Then look East, my friend. Wake up and learn what competition really is, eh?

Derve said... "Ooooh.... outing. Funny how that's always attributed as a tactic of the left...

Note how the only two people to respond to "boldface"'s comment have both criticized it, Derve...

However, I do have to side with Derve on the issue of whether Al Queda is more dangerous than the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was always held in check by MAD, and so its ability to cause harm was always limited by the threat of retaliation. But terrorism is not so constrained, and so it stands to reason that although an individual terrorist attack is going to do less damage at one time than a strategic nuclear exchange, one or more terrorist incidents are also exponentially more likely to take place than such an exchange by virtue of the inapplicability of relatiation as a checking force.

Mort,Is there a term for having a man crush on someone who isn't actually a male? And can you have a transient plain ol' crush alongside a standing non-male man crush? Some deep questions to be pondered.

Derve, I gotta tell you, as an Indian American doctor (cliched, I know) who has briefly thought about relocating back to India to practice (and my parents came here for the opportunity), let me just say that protectionism and outsourcing demogoguery will not keep our economy healthy (not that you engaged in any of that). I can compete, I want to compete, I can produce, I want to produce, but it's hard when there are ten layers of bureaucracy between you and your goal: taking care of patients. Plus, I'm a multiple sclerosis patient, so I see it from the other side, too. Of course, the wonderful vestiges of the socialist license Raj are pretty toublesome too. India starts cutting some of the red tape and look at her go! We should stay as nimble. Threading the needle, of course, will be how to grow in a fast changing world and the feelings (very real) of insecurity that go with that. But, grow, I say, grow. Lou Dobbs-ism will only make things worse.

I think every great man is a feminist, and I think you can tell a lot about a country on how it treats its women. That said, perhaps Ann could join me and pay tribute to Delay's brave and tireless work in stopping legislation backed by Clinton that would bring reform to the CNMI garment industry, in hopes of curbing human trafficking, forced abortions, sex slavery, and workers living behind barbed wire in squalid shacks.

Pointing out the fact him and his cronies accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars in return from the garment factories, is just proof that vicious and nasty lefties are just persecuting and undermining the serious work being done (God willing) by freedom loving Republicans.

I'm not sure if invoking the Cuban Missile Crisis is your best play to prove your point that the world is more dangerous or the "stakes are higher" right now.

I know how "high" they were then and purposely used that example. Yes. I think the stakes -- the true risk, if you will -- is higher now. Perhaps that explains why some of us are so irritatingly earnest, while others are content to namecall and divide the country from within; they can't acknowledge the true risk.

We were at high risk then, and we're at high risk now. Both are the fault of the nations threatening us; the blame does not belong to us in any way at all. To suggest otherwise is too foolish to warrant a hearing.

So, there are very bad people in the world, and we need a very strong military to thwart their murderous plans.

If you measure risk only as the probabilty that something bad will happen, it's probably higher now (vis a vis nuclear weapons). If, however, you measure risk as the product of the probabilty that something bad will happen and the quantity of badness if it does happen, I don't think you can credibly wax nostalgic for the good old days of the Cold War.

Pogo's point is an excellent one, Derve. Not everybody here is in agreement with you that the fault that we are at higher risk now (accepting your premise for the sake of argument) lies with this Administration.

I can't begin to compare myself to the esteemed Ms Ann, but I had the experience recently of a relatively faithful reader of two years emailing me to tell me she was taking me off her favorites list because I had offended her with a post entitled "Useless Idiots" where I quoted a call on the Rush Limbaugh show. She told me I was self-righteous, judgmental and mean and that she didn't appreciate being labeled an idiot just because her views differed from mine. (She thought my posts in the past few months were just as mean -- this was the tipping point.)

I'm not quite sure how she got from a post title playing on Lenin's term for American communists to herself. Maybe she saw herself in the caller, who thought the troubles in the Mideast were all Israel's fault and thought that if Israel were to cease to exist as a nation, the Islamist terrorists would become our new best friends.

But I never said, "Susan" is a Useless Idiot. She, however, took the reference personally, as did my boyfriend's parents, birkenstock-wearing, socialist atheiest card-carrying liberals who have Mother Jones on the coffee table and an "Impeach Bush" poster in the computer room.

When I read an opinion piece I disagree with, especially one that attacks conservatives, I roll my eyes and think, "This guy is an idiot and he's wrong." Usually, he has the facts wrong. But I don't take it personally -- I just assume the writer can't be bothered to think and analyze and I go on my merry way. I sure don't let it ruin my day.

Ann Althouse said... Fill me in here: Which commenter(s) do you suspect are sock puppets and who's the puppeteer? Greenwald (who openly admits his obsession with me)?

If that's to me, I meant that Giacometti is a commenter at the sock-puppeteer's (Greenwald's) site. I had a run-in with him there, which I remember because it was around the time he started plaguing this site.

Greenwald gets him all worked up about who the "enemies" are and he goes around the internet as if on a jihad, making sure to also toss in that Greenwald sells more books and Greenwald is kicking their asses , etc. I don't think he's a sock puppet; I think he's projecting when he calls others sycophants.

I'd be surprised if Greenwald ever pulled out his sock puppet again, after being busted. How many times would he be able to convince his fans to look the other way? Heck, I don't even think Alpha Liberal is a sock puppet. (Well...on second thought.....)

I'll assume Prof. Althouse is just using Socratic irony when she says she doesn't understand the hate, because it seems obvious to me.

In my experience, when something makes no sense at all, one or more of my assumptions/premises is wrong, sometimes utterly and disastrously.

Here I think it's that the left's top priorities are such things equality and free speech. They certainly are not now. Power tops everything, including those two, which are light-years distant. As a former Democrat, I can only wonder if they were ever their true priorities.

Prof. A. is a threat to that power.

Charles Giacometti, you project so much your ideal job would be in a movie theater. You do realize, don't you, that anything so absurd and over the top as your post just makes most people wonder what mental hospital you're posting from?

Mort,Because it has to do with form, which I'm also willing to bet has at least something to do with the reasoning behind your 12:47 comment. It was a lame attempt at a joke. *shrug* My jokes tend to fall flat around here... In this thread, we have learned that I'm neither smart nor funny. LOL.

Yes. I think the stakes -- the true risk, if you will -- is higher now. Perhaps that explains why some of us are so irritatingly earnest, while others are content to namecall and divide the country from within; they can't acknowledge the true risk.

I love how Derve keeps droning on about "the true risk" and how great it allegedly is, but can't ever seem to get around to saying exactly what exactly we're risking, here.

We've now established that Derve thinks the stakes are higher now than they were when the USA and the USSR were a single phone call away from annihilating all human life on the planet. I'm puzzled as to what, exactly, could possibly be worse than that. Has Bush been secretly building a Death Star and only Derve knows about it? Have the plans fallen into the hands of Pat Robertson and we've only minutes to live? Inquiring minds want to know.

Instead of looking East for the question of trade balance look Middle East. IMO, the U.S. has yet to take energy independence serious, and at our own peril. We need to turn the dollar spigot off for M.E. oil.

If that's a roundabout way of referring to the danger that George Lucas might keep inflicting news "Star Wars" material on the unsuspecting public, I agree that the risk is indeed very high -- and, as you've hinted, perhaps higher than it has ever been before.

But I'm not sure I agree that the risk of, say, a Jar Jar Binks "Life Day" Special is necessarily worse than the nuclear annihilation of all of human civilization.

It's quite amazing how much energy some people put into cutting up others whom they don't know and will never meet. What is the point of such mindless blather? It must be because both parties enjoy it. If there were any wit in the exchange, I could see it. But witless and silly insults for their own sake? I don't get it.

Mort - there! You see? That's using discretion. :D There's a line (often a thin one) betwixt lighthearted and complimentary - effusive, even - on the one hand and just plain creepy on the other. The trick is to figure out when you're about to cross it somewhere between clicking "preview" and clicking "publish this comment."

Seriously, Derve: you are the poster child as to why I don't post comments on leftie sites.

You come over here, thinking you're speaking truth to power, and all you do is post cranky comments and spray nasty bile-like substances in all directions, rarely making a point anyone is going to agree with.

And it's not that you don't have something to say that people here might agree with: it's that you *don't want anyone here to agree with you*. Other than maybe, "god, I DO hate Ann! Thanks for making me realize it!"

You are out to vent, not discuss. Lambasting people here for liking Ann and her blog is like me going over to Firedoglake and pointing out how much I don't like the blogs over there. Sure, you know where I stand, but so what? Nothing of substance was communicated other than my feelings.

Well, you know venting is fine, *up to a point*. After a while it starts to resemble self flagellation. It is not pretty.

I am all for good sarcastic wit and clever commentary, particularly when backed up with facts and reasonable arguments. I am not so attracted to name calling, ad hominem attacks and general bar brawling. That I can get at the *bar*.

Blog-battles have become quite the interacative spectator sport recently. I still read Sullivan for instance, but don't feel the need to comment on the clear case of christo-dementia he is suffering from right now. It's painfully obvious that he is sliding off into a deeply trivial abyss that I am pretty sure he will never emerge from. So sad, too bad.

Ann (if I may be so bold as to take the liberty) has a very stimulating cross section of ideas that are not definable via any particular political persuasion. I like that.

I tend to be like that too, but I cannot, for the life of me, get my lefty friends to accept that I am human anymore, if for no other reason other than I held my nose and voted for W 2 times. I didn't like it, but was even less happy with the Democrats for being pathologically unable to field anything other than Lurch and Al "I have deep thoughts" Gore. Give me a choice folks. Sorry, not Obama. Try again.

I am NOT Republican, but I am NOT Liberal. I am an American, and as such I tend to mystify the intelligensia and the press. More's the pity.

I do not know why you would give two hoots about Left Blogistan. When your critics are people like Amanda Marcotte, a hayseed from the hills of West Texas with only one string on her banjo (i.e., feminism) and only a pretense of learning, it is not worth considering why you irk them.

In fact, if you irritate such rabble you must be doing something right.

I love it when my theories are confirmed. 95% of the Leftist posters have come here not to engage in conversation but to slam the hostess and insult anyone who isn't them No civility, no sense of humor. If the Democrats here were truly adults they would engage on the issue and be civil. They can't even act like a mature adult. Instead, all they spew hate and negativity.

I love it when my theories are confirmed. 95% of the Leftist posters have come here not to engage in conversation but to slam the hostess and insult anyone who isn't them No civility, no sense of humor. If the Democrats here were truly adults they would engage on the issue and be civil. They can't even act like a mature adult. Instead, all they spew hate and negativity.

I love it when my theories are confirmed. 95% of the Leftist posters have come here not to engage in conversation but to slam the hostess and insult anyone who isn't them No civility, no sense of humor. If the Democrats here were truly adults they would engage on the issue and be civil. They can't even act like a mature adult. Instead, all they spew hate and negativity.

I love it when my theories are confirmed. 95% of the Leftist posters have come here not to engage in conversation but to slam the hostess and insult anyone who isn't them No civility, no sense of humor. If the Democrats here were truly adults they would engage on the issue and be civil. They can't even act like a mature adult. Instead, all they spew hate and negativity.

I love it when my theories are confirmed. 95% of the Leftist posters have come here not to engage in conversation but to slam the hostess and insult anyone who isn't them No civility, no sense of humor. If the Democrats here were truly adults they would engage on the issue and be civil. They can't even act like a mature adult. Instead, all they spew hate and negativity.

Actually, I was kidding. The comment I posted and then deleted was just fine in my opinion and I don't think Ann would have minded. But I imagine YOU would have gone on and on about it and that your commentary on my comment would have been in bad taste. It has nothing to do with discretion on my part and everything to do with you policing my posts here because, apparently, only one poster per thread is permitted to be a sycophant of Ann.

Somehow in America we've got to the point where different political views have become a source of division. Time to call a spade a spade. In America 90% of this nonsense comes from the Left.

Lefties: you ought to be ashamed of yourselves. Not for your views, but for your bitter, utterly childish attitudes towards those who disagree with you. You're obviously quite insecure in your beliefs, and it diminishes all of us

right -- the democrats should stop saying that their opponents are terrorist lovers and traitors -- wait, its not the democrats who say that?? well, who is it then??

I am continually amazed as to how what is going on now here and in the world is worse and more conseqence-ridden than the Civil war, WW1, WW2, the Korean war, Viet Nam, DDT, the Weathermen, the SDS, the gas crisis, and cancer.

Apparently we hold the fate of the entire world in our evil, grubby right wing hands.

dude, its the right that claims that we are in wwIII and that the terrorists could "win" and install OBL and hillary! in the white house. the right.

"dude, its the right that claims that we are in wwIII and that the terrorists could "win" and install OBL and hillary! in the white house. the right. "

Partially right. If by the "right" you mean the government, they are in a strange place. How do you keep people's attention on something that they are quite sure is more important than the press seems to think it is? Well, you have to keep the drumbeat up.

Just as the "left" likes to describe soldiers as victimized morons (or occasionally homocidal maniacs), the "right" feels the need to emphasize the gravity of the situation and the amazing work being done in the field. Not to mention the totally skewed messages coming out of Iraq when comparing press reports to military staff.

The major problem with Iraq right now is *political*. And, oddly enough, not Iraqi politics. True, they are screwed up, but everything the ISG and the Congress is really concerned about is saving face, not Iraq.

The military, by and large, want to finish the job there. It's just (as always) the government getting in the way and not allowing them to do it.

political issues in iraq? the major "problem" in iraq is the vicious civil war.

congress shouldn't be concerned about "saving iraq," congress should be concerned about the pursuit of american interests. if "saving iraq," to the extent thats even possible, is too costly, then "saving iraq" should not be a goal of congress.

skewed messages coming out of iraq? are you part of the "painting schools" crowd?

and, as always on this blog, there are silly generalizations about what "the left" thinks or calls the troops. i'm not aware of any such sentiment that you express.

and by "the right," i mean "the right." the administration is part of the right, the right wing media machine is part of the right, and newt gingrich is part of the right.

Let's be honest, it's arguable, as Derve says, that the stakes are higher now in a way. Just not in the way Derve seems to think.

Sure, we were on the brink of nuclear holocaust during the Cold War, but that's just a whistle and a flash and it's all over. What's worse is the threat we're facing today, and not from the Bush Administration.

The threat is that our culture no longer cares about defending its common ideals and values; that democracy all over the world is at stake and no one can be bothered to even define the enemy as being "wrong", let alone fighting it. That our descendants are going to be under constant attack from the ever-growing jihadi population, or worse, will keep making attempts to accommodate in ways that just capitulates to avoid the capital crime of OFFENDING SOMEONE; and future attacks are going to lead to curtailed or even suspended liberties if we don't take this threat seriously. There won't be an American left to fight for. That's the threat, and I think in a way it is certainly greater than the Cold War. Probably as great as the threat in WWII, and harder to fight because it's not military battles alone that need to be won.

Where exactly, Exalted, does such a thing exist? On this planet, the media flagship, the NYT, for all intents and purposes serves as the house organ of the Democratic Party. The remainder of the print and broadcast media, except for the somewhat declasse Fox, follows the NYT's lead. What are you complaining about?

- When challenged with fact, Ann Althouse often responds with silliness. Silliness is fine but don't engage a serious conversation, turn to silliness when you are proven wrong and then turn around and attack your protagonist as being too serious.

- Althouse attacks people, sometimes in very nasty ways, because they have challeneged her statements.

- Althouse makes (poorly reasoned) excuses for Constitutional abuses by the bush Administration. Again, when challenged, her responses are without substance, often contradicted by factual reality, but contain plenty of snark.

tjl, I could give you a hundred examples and factual analysis of right wing media balance. But would you look at it with an open mind? Naaah. You've got your alternate universe. No sesne in wasting time.

Just ask youself who owns and controls the media? Are media moguls really of a liberal stripe?

Take a break from the KoolAid and we can talk again. (remember, like Ann, this is just funny. Have a sense of humor).

a)All Polls show that NYC is deep blue. Republicans have to be very moderate, of the Lync Chaffee type, to make it there. But they were confronted with too many republican scandals this year. The endoresements are no surprise.

And Sulzberger a liberal? The guy who first pushed Judy "WH talking points" Millers carreer and then defended here 'til it hurt? You got to be kidding!

And what of the writer (someone promoted on Glen Reynold's blog, actually) who when talking about a book series he was writing announced with a bit of happiness that in the next one he got to kill off George Bush?

I don't know if he changed the name or not, or described the President giving him a different name.

But that's fiction, and with alternate realities and stuff there's all sorts of opportunities to do in the people who annoy you. So I'll read his books anyway. He's a talented story teller.

Still, to get writerly pedantic on you... the lead up to publication is often years, if by "last March" you mean March 2006, it would be excessively difficult to "write in" anything about anyone in a book pubilshed in 2006. Near impossible.

If you want to talk nasty, how about the serious suggestions by people such as Dr. John Reid, quoted by Tim Blair (his link isn't working for me)

"War, Pestilence, and Famine, three of the horsemen of the apocalypse, can bring about a reduction in the human population. But these kill on a scale of tens of millions, which is not enough to solve the problem of over-population. And they are most brutal in the ways they kill. Consequently, let us consider the alternative ...

The next most human way to reduce the population might be to put something in the water ..."

Not even fiction. Serious talk about forcefully sterilizing huge swathes of the population against their will. This is coming from the global warming - humanity is a disease crowd, and I'm supposed to think a writer is evil for writing fiction about them that is mean?

Face it, these people can't stand to be exposed for the evil they are.

Does Sulzberger believe in big government? Does he want to raise taxes or lower them? Does he have a Jacksonian foreign policy? How did he feel about welfare reform? What is his position on abortion? What is his position on policing? Affirmative action? Gay marriage? How religious is he?

When was the last time he supported a conservative candidate?

Pinch is the epitome of a New York left-liberal. Anyone who doesn't understand that Arthur Sulzberger is a left-liberal straight out of Radical Chic ought to be banned from reasonable discourse, for the good of the discourse.

"Anyone who doesn't understand that Arthur Sulzberger is a left-liberal straight out of Radical Chic ought to be banned."

But Seven, before we ban Alpha Liberal, let's be scrupulously fair. Maybe Alpha honestly does believe Pinch isn't left-wing, because to Alpha, Pinch seems far to the right. That would be because Alpha believes in nationalization of the means of production, collectivization of agriculture, and the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Ann's administrator removed content I posted from this post showing a vicious atack by a right wing writer. I had asked Ann Althouse to address herself to Mr. Crichton's manners as she is so intent on painting lefty bloggers as "vicious and nasty" in lieu of substance.

You won't hear criticism of this "vicious and nasty" writing from Ann nor any of the braying self-righteous pundits who turn a blind eye to wretched ceonservative excesses. Nor does she employ "substance", though it's good to see her consider the idea.

And as to my failure to blog about some news story (that I didn't even notice)... I don't have to look for and blog about things as a defense against your inferences. What a crap blog this would be if that was my standard.

I don't want to prejudice people against the author because he may well have (as most authors do when putting someone they dislike into a story) disguised the identity of the pres to the point of deniability. Plus, I have no idea how the presidential death was treated, or even if it made it through the final draft. (It's not as though writers never kill off presidents.)

As for first hand knowledge... it was the author himself in a public internet forum who made the statement. Do I know it was really him? To a high degree of certainty, yes.

Was I a little disappointed to hear it, yes. Is it important in some larger sense, no. Killing people is a common pastime in fiction. The novel I'm presently working on begins with someone getting blown into little gooey bits and on the forum we're talking about the mechanics of such a thing. How is a person made to splatter?

Mystery writer's clubs spend a lot of their time figuring out how to kill people. Crime books portray horrible torture and abuse.

Taking fiction too seriously, and *particularly* taking what authors research or put in their books as some indication of the author's desires (what does human flesh taste like, anyway) is a mistake.

do not know why you would give two hoots about Left Blogistan. When your critics are people like Amanda Marcotte, a hayseed from the hills of West Texas with only one string on her banjo (i.e., feminism) and only a pretense of learning, it is not worth considering why you irk them.

Yeah, Marcotte is a one trick pony from West Texas. Likes to imagine that she's from somewhere else. Has little education. The irony is that she works for U of Texas, a government job supported by taxpayers. That's right, she blogs on the taxpayers' dime....all day long, playing that one string. There is a reason why she no longer posts the time of day of her articles.